Acceptance criteria for new approach methods in toxicology and human health-relevant life science research - part I

Every test procedure, scientific and non-scientific, has inherent uncertainties, even when performed according to a standard operating procedure (SOP). In addition, it is prone to errors, defects, and mistakes introduced by operators, laboratory equipment, or materials used. Adherence to an SOP and comprehensive validation of the test method cannot guarantee that each test run produces data within the acceptable range of variability and with the precision and accuracy determined during the method validation. We illustrate here (part I) why controlling the validity of each test run is an important element of experimental design. The definition and application of acceptance criteria (AC) for the validity of test runs is important for the setup and use of test methods, particularly for the use of new approach methods (NAM) in toxicity testing. AC can be used for decision rules on how to handle data, e.g., to accept the data for further use (AC fulfilled) or to reject the data (AC not fulfilled). The adherence to AC has important requirements and consequences that may seem surprising at first sight: (i) AC depend on a test method's objectives, e.g., on the types/concentrations of chemicals tested, the regulatory context, the desired throughput; (ii) AC are applied and documented at each test run, while validation of a method (including the definition of AC) is only performed once; (iii) if AC are altered, then the set of data produced by a method can change. AC, if missing, are the blind spot of quality assurance: Test results may not be reliable and comparable. The establishment and uses of AC will be further detailed in part II of this series.

4.2 million and counting… The animal toll for REACH systemic toxicity studies

The EU's chemicals regulation, REACH, requires that most chemicals in the EU be evaluated for human health and ecosystem risks, with a mandate to minimize use of animal tests for these evaluations. The REACH process has been ongoing since about 2008, but a calculation of the resulting animal use is not publicly available. For this reason, we have undertaken a count of animals used for REACH. With EU legislators set to consider REACH revisions that could expand animal testing, we are releasing results for test categories counted to date: reproductive toxicity tests, developmental toxicity tests, and repeat-ed-dose toxicity tests for human health. The total animal count as of December 2022 for these categories is about 2.9 million. Additional tests involving about 1.3 million animals are currently required by a final proposal authorization or compliance check but not yet completed. The total, 4.2 million, for just these three test categories exceeds the original European Com-mission forecast of 2.6 million for all REACH tests. The difference is primarily because the European Commission estimate excluded offspring, which are most of the animals used for REACH. Other reasons for the difference are extra animals included in tests to ensure sufficient survive to meet the minimum test requirement; dose range-finding tests; extra test animal groups, e.g., for recovery analysis; and a high rejection rate of read-across studies. Given higher than forecast animal use, the upcoming debate on proposed REACH revisions is an opportunity to refocus on reducing animal numbers in keeping with the REACH mandate.

The Current Status and Work of Three Rs Centres and Platforms in Europe

The adoption of Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes has given a major push to the formation of Three Rs initiatives in the form of centres and platforms. These centres and platforms are dedicated to the so-called Three Rs, which are the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal use in experiments. ATLA's 50th Anniversary year has seen the publication of two articles on European Three Rs centres and platforms. The first of these was about the progressive rise in their numbers and about their founding history; this second part focuses on their current status and activities. This article takes a closer look at their financial and organisational structures, describes their Three Rs focus and core activities (dissemination, education, implementation, scientific quality/translatability, ethics), and presents their areas of responsibility and projects in detail. This overview of the work and diverse structures of the Three Rs centres and platforms is not only intended to bring them closer to the reader, but also to provide role models and show examples of how such Three Rs centres and platforms could be made sustainable. The Three Rs centres and platforms are very important focal points and play an immense role as facilitators of Directive 2010/63/EU 'on the ground' in their respective countries. They are also invaluable for the wide dissemination of information and for promoting the implementation of the Three Rs in general.

On the usefulness of animals as a model system (part I): Overview of criteria and focus on robustness

Banning or reduction of the use of animals for laboratory experiments is a frequently-discussed societal and scientific issue. Moreover, the usefulness of animals needs to be considered in any decision process on the permission of specific animal studies. This complex issue is often simplified and generalized in the media around the question, "Are animals useful as a model?" To render an often emotional discussion about animal experimentation more rational, it is important to define "usefulness" in a structured and transparent way. To achieve such a goal, many sub-questions need to be asked, and the following aspects require clarification: (i) consistency of animal-derived data (robustness of the model system); (ii) scientific domain investigated (e.g., toxicology vs disease modelling vs therapy); (iii) measurement unit for "benefit" (inte-grating positive and negative aspects); (iv) benchmarking to alternatives; (v) definition of success criteria (how good is good enough); (vi) the procedure to assess benefit and necessity. This series of articles discusses the overall benchmarking process by specifying the six issues. The goal is to provide guidance on what needs to be clarified in scientific and political discussions. This framework should help in the future to structure available information, to identify and fill information gaps, and to arrive at rational decisions in various sub-fields of animal use. In part I of the series, we focus on the robustness of animal models. This describes the capacity of models to produce the same output/response when faced with the "same" input. Follow-up articles will cover the remaining usefulness aspects.

Continuing animal tests on cosmetic ingredients for REACH in the EU

EU cosmetic ingredients are governed by two regulations that conflict. Regulation EC 1223/2009, the Cosmetic Regulation, bans in vivo (animal) testing for cosmetic product safety assessments, including both final products and ingredients. At the same time, the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation can impose in vivo testing of those same ingredients under its chemical testing requirements. Here, we examined REACH dossiers for chemicals for which the only reported use is cosmetics to determine the extent of new in vivo testing caused by REACH. We found the REACH database has 3,206 chemical dossiers with cosmetics as a reported use. Of these, 419 report cosmetics as the only use, and 63 of these have in vivo tests completed after the Cosmetic Regulation ban on in vivo testing. Registrants largely used alternative, non-animal methods to evaluate ingredients for REACH, but some still conducted new in vivo tests to comply with REACH requirements for toxicity data and worker safety assessments. In some cases, ECHA, the agency that evaluates REACH dossiers, rejected registrants’ alternative methods as insufficient and required new in vivo tests. As ECHA continues to evaluate dossiers, more requests for in vivo tests are likely. REACH tests on cosmetic ingredients appear only as “industrial chemicals legislation” tests in EU reports. Given the importance to consumers and the cosmetic industry of having cosmetics free of animal testing, the public should be made aware of REACH testing until the conflict between the regulations is resolved.

NAM-supported read-across: From case studies to regulatory guidance in safety assessment

The use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) in support of read-across (RAx) approaches for regulatory purposes is a main goal of the EU-ToxRisk project. To bring this forward, EU-ToxRisk partners convened a workshop in close collaboration with regulatory representatives from key organizations including European regulatory agencies, such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as well as the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), national agencies from several European countries, Japan, Canada and the USA, as well as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). More than a hundred people actively participated in the discussions, bringing together diverse viewpoints across academia, regulators and industry. The discussion was organized starting from five practical cases of RAx applied to specific problems that offered the oppor-tunity to consider real examples. There was general consensus that NAMs can improve confidence in RAx, in particular in defining category boundaries as well as characterizing the similarities/dissimilarities between source and target substances. In addition to describing dynamics, NAMs can be helpful in terms of kinetics and metabolism that may play an important role in the demonstration of similarity or dissimilarity among the members of a category. NAMs were also noted as effective in providing quanti-tative data correlated with traditional no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) used in risk assessment, while reducing the uncertainty on the final conclusion. An interesting point of view was the advice on calibrating the number of new tests that should be carefully selected, avoiding the allure of "the more, the better". Unfortunately, yet unsurprisingly, there was no single approach befitting every case, requiring careful analysis delineating the optimal approach. Expert analysis and assessment of each specific case is still an important step in the process.

Comparison between Communicated and Calculated Exposure Estimates Obtained through Three Modeling Tools

This study aims to evaluate the risk assessment approach of the REACH legislation in industrial chemical departments with a focus on the use of three models to calculate exposures, and discuss those factors that can determine a bias between the estimated exposure (and therefore the expected risk) in the extended safety data sheets (e-SDS) and the expected exposure for the actual scenario. To purse this goal, the exposure estimates and risk characterization ratios (RCRs) of registered exposure scenarios (ES; “communicated exposure” and “communicated RCR”) were compared with the exposure estimates and the corresponding RCRs calculated for the actual, observed ES, using recommended tools for the evaluation of exposure assessment and in particular the following tools: (i) the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals Targeted Risk Assessment v.3.1 (ECETOC TRA), (ii) STOFFENMANAGER^® v.8.0 and (iii) the Advanced REACH Tool (ART). We evaluated 49 scenarios in three companies handling chemicals. Risk characterization ratios (RCRs) were calculated by dividing estimated exposures by derived no-effect levels (DNELs). Although the calculated exposure and RCRs generally were lower than communicated, the correlation between communicated and calculated exposures and RCRs was generally poor, indicating that the generic registered scenarios do not reflect actual working, exposure and risk conditions. Further, some observed scenarios resulted in calculated exposure values and RCR higher than those communicated through chemicals’ e-SDSs; thus ‘false safe’ scenarios (calculated RCRs > 1) were also observed. Overall, the obtained evidences contribute to doubt about whether the risk assessment should be performed using generic (communicated by suppliers) ES with insufficient detail of the specific scenario at all companies. Contrariwise, evidences suggested that it would be safer for downstream users to perform scenario-specific evaluations, by means of proper scaling approach, to achieve more representative estimates of chemical risk.

Internationalization of read-across as a validated new approach method (NAM) for regulatory toxicology

Read-across (RAx) translates available information from well-characterized chemicals to a substance for which there is a toxicological data gap. The OECD is working on case studies to probe general applicability of RAx, and several regulations (e.g., EU-REACH) already allow this procedure to be used to waive new in vivo tests. The decision to prepare a review on the state of the art of RAx as a tool for risk assessment for regulatory purposes was taken during a workshop with international experts in Ranco, Italy in July 2018. Three major issues were identified that need optimization to allow a higher regulatory acceptance rate of the RAx procedure: (i) the definition of similarity of source and target, (ii) the translation of biological/toxicological activity of source to target in the RAx procedure, and (iii) how to deal with issues of ADME that may differ between source and target. The use of new approach methodologies (NAM) was discussed as one of the most important innovations to improve the acceptability of RAx. At present, NAM data may be used to confirm chemical and toxicological similarity. In the future, the use of NAM may be broadened to fully characterize the hazard and toxicokinetic properties of RAx compounds. Concerning available guidance, documents on Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) and on best practices to perform and evaluate the RAx process were identified. Here, in particular, the RAx guidance, being worked out by the European Commission’s H2020 project EU-ToxRisk together with many external partners with regulatory experience, is given.

Template for the description of cell-based toxicological test methods to allow evaluation and regulatory use of the data

Only few cell-based test methods are described by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines or other regulatory references (e.g., the European Pharmacopoeia). The majority of toxicity tests still falls into the category of non-guideline methods. Data from these tests may nevertheless be used to support regulatory decisions or to guide strategies to assess compounds (e.g., drugs, agrochemicals) during research and development if they fulfill basic requirements concerning their relevance, reproducibility and predictivity. Only a method description of sufficient clarity and detail allows interpretation and use of the data. To guide regulators faced with increasing amounts of data from non-guideline studies, the OECD formulated Guidance Document 211 (GD211) on method documentation for the purpose of safety assessment. As GD211 is targeted mainly at regulators, it leaves scientists less familiar with regulation uncertain as to what level of detail is required and how individual questions should be answered. Moreover, little attention was given to the description of the test system (i.e., cell culture) and the steps leading to it being established in the guidance. To address these issues, an annotated toxicity test method template (ToxTemp) was developed (i) to fulfill all requirements of GD211, (ii) to guide the user concerning the types of answers and detail of information required, (iii) to include acceptance criteria for test elements, and (iv) to define the cells sufficiently and transparently. The fully annotated ToxTemp is provided here, together with reference to a database containing exemplary descriptions of more than 20 cell-based tests.

Erratum to Template for the description of cell-based toxicological test methods to allow evaluation and regulatory use of the data

In this manuscript, which appeared in ALTEX (2019), 36(4), 682- 699, doi:10.14573/altex.1909271 , the affiliation of Hennicke Kamp should be Experimental Toxicology and Ecology, BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany. Further, the reference to an article by Bal-Price et al. (2015) should have the following doi:10.1007/s00204-015-1464-2 .

Management of an Integrated Project (Sens-it-iv) to Develop In Vitro Tests to Assess Sensitisation

Sens-it-iv is an integrated project, funded by European Commission Framework Programme 6, the overall objective of which is to develop in vitro tests and test strategies to be used by the chemical, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries to assess the risk for potential contact and respiratory sensitisers. Such tests, once formally validated and accepted, will permit the evaluation of the sensitising potential of existing and new chemical entities and the products of the European industries for classification and labelling, as required by the new EU REACH legislation on chemicals, or for the purpose of risk assessment as required by the 7th Amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive. Sens-it-iv involves 28 partners, representing industries, universities and regulatory bodies, including various institutes in the EU Member States and different competencies, all with the common aim of achieving a final deliverable — increasing the safety of consumer products, whilst reducing animal experimentation. This paper provides an overview of the structure of the project and a detailed description of the organisation of its management.

Optimizing drug discovery by Investigative Toxicology: Current and future trends

Investigative Toxicology describes the de-risking and mechanistic elucidation of toxicities, supporting early safety decisions in the pharmaceutical industry. Recently, Investigative Toxicology has contributed to a shift in pharmaceutical toxicology, from a descriptive to an evidence-based, mechanistic discipline. This was triggered by high costs and low throughput of Good Laboratory Practice in vivo studies, and increasing demands for adhering to the 3R (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) principles of animal welfare. Outside the boundaries of regulatory toxicology, Investigative Toxicology has the flexibility to embrace new technologies, enhancing translational steps from in silico, in vitro to in vivo mechanistic understanding to eventually predict human response. One major goal of Investigative Toxicology is improving preclinical decisions, which coincides with the concept of animal-free safety testing. Currently, compounds under preclinical development are being discarded due to the use of inappropriate animal models. Progress in Investigative Toxicology could lead to humanized in vitro test systems and the development of medicines less reliant on animal tests. To advance this field a group of 14 European-based leaders from the pharmaceutical industry founded the Investigative Toxicology Leaders Forum (ITLF), an open, non-exclusive and pre-competitive group that shares knowledge and experience. The ITLF collaborated with the Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing Europe (CAAT-Europe) to organize an "Investigative Toxicology Think-Tank", which aimed to enhance the interaction with experts from academia and regulatory bodies in the field. Summarizing the topics and discussion of the workshop, this article highlights Investigative Toxicology's position by identifying key challenges and perspectives.

Analysis of public oral toxicity data from REACH registrations 2008-2014

The European Chemicals Agency, ECHA, made available a total of 13,832 oral toxicity studies for 8,568 substances up to December 2014. 75% of studies were from the retired OECD Test Guideline 401 (11% TG 420, 11% TG 423 and 1.5% TG 425). Concordance across guidelines, evaluated by comparing LD50 values ≥ 2000 or < 2000 mg/kg body weight from chemicals tested multiple times between different guidelines, was at least 75% and for their own repetition more than 90%. In 2009, Bulgheroni et al. created a simple model for predicting acute oral toxicity using no observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) from 28-day repeated dose toxicity studies in rats. This was reproduced here for 1,625 substances. In 2014, Taylor et al. suggested no added value of the 90-day repeated dose oral toxicity test given the availability of a low 28-day study with some constraints. We confirm that the 28-day NOAEL is predictive (albeit imperfectly) of 90-day NOAELs, however, the suggested constraints did not affect predictivity. 1,059 substances with acute oral toxicity data (268 positives, 791 negatives, all Klimisch score 1) were used for modeling: The Chemical Development Kit was used to generate 27 molecular descriptors and a similarity-informed multilayer perceptron showing 71% sensitivity and 72% specificity. Additionally, the k-nearest neighbors (KNN) algorithm indicated that similarity-based approaches alone may be poor predictors of acute oral toxicity, but can be used to inform the multilayer perceptron model, where this was the feature with highest information value.

Analysis of publically available skin sensitization data from REACH registrations 2008-2014

The public data on skin sensitization from REACH registrations already included 19,111 studies on skin sensitization in December 2014, making it the largest repository of such data so far (1,470 substances with mouse LLNA, 2,787 with GPMT, 762 with both in vivo and in vitro and 139 with only in vitro data). 21% were classified as sensitizers. The extracted skin sensitization data was analyzed to identify relationships in skin sensitization guidelines, visualize structural relationships of sensitizers, and build models to predict sensitization.

A chemical with molecular weight > 500 Da is generally considered non-sensitizing owing to low bioavailability, but 49 sensitizing chemicals with a molecular weight > 500 Da were found.

A chemical similarity map was produced using PubChem’s 2D Tanimoto similarity metric and Gephi force layout visualization. Nine clusters of chemicals were identified by Blondel’s module recognition algorithm revealing wide module-dependent variation.

Approximately 31% of mapped chemicals are Michael’s acceptors but alone this does not imply skin sensitization. A simple sensitization model using molecular weight and five ToxTree structural alerts showed a balanced accuracy of 65.8% (specificity 80.4%, sensitivity 51.4%), demonstrating that structural alerts have information value.

A simple variant of k-nearest neighbors outperformed the ToxTree approach even at 75% similarity threshold (82% balanced accuracy at 0.95 threshold). At higher thresholds, the balanced accuracy increased. Lower similarity thresholds decrease sensitivity faster than specificity.

This analysis scopes the landscape of chemical skin sensitization, demonstrating the value of large public datasets for health hazard prediction.

Global analysis of publicly available safety data for 9,801 substances registered under REACH from 2008-2014

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) warehouses the largest public dataset of in vivo and in vitro toxicity tests. In December 2014 this data was converted into a structured, machine readable and searchable database using natural language processing. It contains data for 9,801 unique substances, 3,609 unique study descriptions and 816,048 study documents. This allows exploring toxicological data on a scale far larger than previously possible.

Substance similarity analysis was used to determine clustering of substances for hazards by mapping to PubChem. Similarity was measured using PubChem 2D conformational substructure fingerprints, which were compared via the Tanimoto metric. Following K-Core filtration, the Blondel et al. (2008) module recognition algorithm was used to identify chemical modules showing clusters of substances in use within the chemical universe.

The Global Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling provides a valuable information source for hazard analysis. The most prevalent hazards are H317 “May cause an allergic skin reaction” with 20% and H318 “Causes serious eye damage” with 17% positive substances. Such prevalences obtained for all hazards here are key for the design of integrated testing strategies. The data allowed estimation of animal use.

The database covers about 20% of substances in the high-throughput biological assay database Tox21 (1,737 substances) and has a 917 substance overlap with the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (~7% of CTD). The biological data available in these datasets combined with ECHA in vivo endpoints have enormous modeling potential. A case is made that REACH should systematically open regulatory data for research purposes.

Analysis of Draize eye irritation testing and its prediction by mining publicly available 2008-2014 REACH data

Public data from ECHA online dossiers on 9,801 substances encompassing 326,749 experimental key studies and additional information on classification and labeling were made computable. Eye irritation hazard, for which the rabbit Draize eye test still represents the reference method, was analyzed. Dossiers contained 9,782 Draize eye studies on 3,420 unique substances, indicating frequent retesting of substances. This allowed assessment of the test's reproducibility test based on all substances tested more than once. There was a 10% chance of a non-irritant evaluation given after a prior severe-irritant result as given by UN GHS classification criteria. The most reproducible outcomes were the results negative (94% reproducible) and severe eye irritant (73% reproducible). To evaluate whether other GHS categorizations predict eye irritation we built a dataset of 5,629 substances (1,931 'irritant' and 3,698 'non-irritant'). The two best decision trees with up to three other GHS classifications resulted in balanced accuracies of 68% and 73%, i.e., in the rank order of the Draize rabbit eye test itself, but both use inhalation toxicity data ("May cause respiratory irritation"), which is not typically available. Next, a dataset of 929 substances with at least one Draize study was mapped to PubChem to compute chemical similarity using 2D conformational fingerprints and Tanimoto similarity. Using a minimum similarity of 0.7 and simple classification by the closest chemical neighbor resulted in balanced accuracy from 73% over 737 substances to 100% at a threshold of 0.975 over 41 substances. This represents a strong support of read-across and (Q)SAR approaches in this area.

Toxicity testing in the 21st century beyond environmental chemicals

After the publication of the report titled Toxicity Testing in the 21^st Century – A Vision and a Strategy, many initiatives started to foster a major paradigm shift for toxicity testing – from apical endpoints in animal-based tests to mechanistic endpoints through delineation of pathways of toxicity (PoT) in human cell based systems. The US EPA has funded an important project to develop new high throughput technologies based on human cell based in vitro technologies. These methods are currently being incorporated into the chemical risk assessment process. In the pharmaceutical industry, the efficacy and toxicity of new drugs are evaluated during preclinical investigations that include drug metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety toxicology studies. The results of these studies are analyzed and extrapolated to predict efficacy and potential adverse effects in humans. However, due to the high failure rate of drugs during the clinical phases, a new approach for a more predictive assessment of drugs both in terms of efficacy and adverse effects is getting urgent. The food industry faces the challenge of assessing novel foods and food ingredients for the general population, while using animal safety testing for extrapolation purposes is often of limited relevance. The question is whether the latest paradigm shift proposed by the Tox21c report for chemicals may provide a useful tool to improve the risk assessment approach also for drugs and food ingredients.

Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) for safety assessment

Integrated testing strategies (ITS), as opposed to single definitive tests or fixed batteries of tests, are expected to efficiently combine different information sources in a quantifiable fashion to satisfy an information need, in this case for regulatory safety assessments. With increasing awareness of the limitations of each individual tool and the development of highly targeted tests and predictions, the need for combining pieces of evidence increases. The discussions that took place during this workshop, which brought together a group of experts coming from different related areas, illustrate the current state of the art of ITS, as well as promising developments and identifiable challenges. The case of skin sensitization was taken as an example to understand how possible ITS can be constructed, optimized and validated. This will require embracing and developing new concepts such as adverse outcome pathways (AOP), advanced statistical learning algorithms and machine learning, mechanistic validation and "Good ITS Practices".

A roadmap for hazard monitoring and risk assessment of marine biotoxins on the basis of chemical and biological test systems

Aquatic food accounts for over 40% of global animal food products, and the potential contamination with toxins of algal origin--marine biotoxins--poses a health threat for consumers. The gold standards to assess toxins in aquatic food have traditionally been in vivo methods, i.e., the mouse as well as the rat bioassay. Besides ethical concerns, there is also a need for more reliable test methods because of low inter-species comparability, high intra-species variability, the high number of false positive and negative results as well as questionable extrapolation of quantitative risk to humans. For this reason, a transatlantic group of experts in the field of marine biotoxins was convened from academia and regulatory safety authorities to discuss future approaches to marine biotoxin testing. In this report they provide a background on the toxin classes, on their chemical characterization, the epidemiology, on risk assessment and management, as well as on their assumed mode of action. Most importantly, physiological functional assays such as in vitro bioassays and also analytical techniques, e.g., liquid chromatography coupled mass spectrometry (LC-MS), as substitutes for the rodent bioassay are reviewed. This forms the basis for recommendations on methodologies for hazard monitoring and risk assessment, establishment of causality of intoxications in human cases, a roadmap for research and development of human-relevant functional assays, as well as new approaches for a consumer directed safety concept.

ESNATS Conference — The use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells for Novel Toxicity Testing Approaches

The main achievements and results of the ESNATS project (Embryonic Stem Cell-based Novel Alternative Testing Strategies) were presented at the final project conference that was held on 15 September 2013, the day before the traditional EUSAAT (European Society for Alternatives to Animal Testing) Congress in Linz, Austria. The ESNATS project was an FP7 European Integrated Project, running from 2008 to 2013, the aim of which was to develop a novel toxicity testing platform based on embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and in particular, human ESC (hESCs), to accelerate drug development, reduce related R&D costs, and propose a powerful alternative to animal tests in the spirit of the Three Rs principles. Altogether, ESNATS offered the first proof of concept that hESCs can be used to create robust, reproducible and ready-to use test assays for predicting human toxicity. In the end, essentially five test systems were developed to an adequate level for entering possible pre-validation procedures. These methods are based on hESCs, and can be combined to study the possible effects, on the human embryo, of exposure to a chemical during the early stages of development. In addition to the presentations by the main project partners, external speakers were invited to give lectures on relevant topics, both in the field of neurotoxicity and, more generally, on the applicability of hESCs in the development of advanced in vitro tests.

Advanced tests for skin and respiratory sensitization assessment

Sens-it-iv is an FP6 Integrated Project that finished in March 2011 after 66 months of activity, thanks to 12 million € of funding. The ultimate goal of the Sens-it-iv project was the development of a set of in vitro methods for the assessment of the skin and respiratory sensitization potential of chemicals and proteins. The level of development was intended to be at the point to enter the pre-validation phase. At the end of the project it can be concluded that the goal has been largely accomplished. Several advanced methods were evaluated extensively, and for some of them a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was established. Other, less advanced methods also contributed to our understanding of the mechanisms driving sensitization. The present contribution, which has been prepared with the support of CAAT-Europe, represents a short summary of what was discussed during the 3-day end congress of the Sens-it-iv project in Brussels. It presents a list of methods that are ready for skin sensitization hazard assessment. Potency evaluation and the possibility of distinguishing skin from respiratory sensitizers are also well advanced.

A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing

Systemic toxicity testing forms the cornerstone for the safety evaluation of substances. Pressures to move from traditional animal models to novel technologies arise from various concerns, including: the need to evaluate large numbers of previously untested chemicals and new products (such as nanoparticles or cell therapies), the limited predictivity of traditional tests for human health effects, duration and costs of current approaches, and animal welfare considerations. The latter holds especially true in the context of the scheduled 2013 marketing ban on cosmetic ingredients tested for systemic toxicity. Based on a major analysis of the status of alternative methods (Adler et al., 2011) and its independent review (Hartung et al., 2011), the present report proposes a roadmap for how to overcome the acknowledged scientific gaps for the full replacement of systemic toxicity testing using animals. Five whitepapers were commissioned addressing toxicokinetics, skin sensitization, repeated-dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity testing. An expert workshop of 35 participants from Europe and the US discussed and refined these whitepapers, which were subsequently compiled to form the present report. By prioritizing the many options to move the field forward, the expert group hopes to advance regulatory science.

The local lymph node assay (LLNA)

The murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) is a widely accepted method for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. Compared with other in vivo methods in guinea pig, the LLNA offers important advantages with respect to animal welfare, including a requirement for reduced animal numbers as well as reduced pain and trauma. In addition to hazard identification, the LLNA is used for determining the relative skin sensitizing potency of contact allergens as a pivotal contribution to the risk assessment process. The LLNA is the only in vivo method that has been subjected to a formal validation process. The original LLNA protocol is based on measurement of the proliferative activity of draining lymph node cells (LNC), as determined by incorporation of radiolabeled thymidine. Several variants to the original LLNA have been developed to eliminate the use of radioactive materials. One such alternative is considered here: the LLNA:BrdU-ELISA method, which uses 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU) in place of radiolabeled thymidine to measure LNC proliferation in draining nodes.

Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals - a report by the transatlantic think tank for toxicology (t(4))

The EU REACH legislation for chemicals of 2006 represents the largest investment into consumer product safety ever. A reanalysis of cost and animal use estimates was carried out based on the final legislation, test guidance for industry published by the European Chemical Agency, and the preregistration completed in December 2008. The new estimates for the number of substances falling under REACH range from 68 to 101,000 chemicals, substantially exceeding the earlier estimates of 29,000 substances. The latter estimates were, however, based on data before 1994 and both expansion of the EU and growth of the chemical industry since have contributed to higher numbers today. The lower estimate of 68,000 chemicals was carried through current testing requirements with due regard to emerging alternative approaches, using in all cases the most optimistic assumptions (minimal animal numbers per test and neglecting most triggering of additional tests and confirmatory (re-)tests as well as tests requested but not yet defined for endocrine disruption, respiratory irritation, respiratory sensitization and developmental neurotoxicity). The most demanding studies are in the area of reproductive toxicity testing with about 90% of all animal use and 70% of the required costs for registration. The overall result suggests a demand of 54 million vertebrate animals and testing costs of 9.5 billion euro. This clearly challenges the feasibility of the program without a major investment into high-throughput methodologies.